The price of appeasement

In September 1938 when the then German Chancellor Adolf Hitler threatened to conquer Czechoslovakia under the pretext of annexing the German speaking population of Sudeten, the Prime Ministers of Britain and France Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier reached Munich to avert the outbreak of war. Munich crisis led to the famous ‘policy of appeasement’ particularly pursued by Britain vis-à-vis Nazi Germany which led to the German conquest of Czechoslovakia and a year later Poland was occupied by the Nazi forces.

The policy of appeasement pursued by Britain failed to avert the outbreak of Second World War because conciliation and placation of something which is tantamount to tolerate aggression can only trigger more violence and destruction.

The messing up of operation to clean up Faizabad from sit-in and its backlash in various parts of Pakistan is a sad reflection how fragile state is to enforce its writ. It means, there existed lack of coordination in the chain of command to restore law and order particularly in Islamabad/Rawalpindi. The late night agreement of November 26 signed between the Federal Interior Minister and Khadim Hussain Rizvi central Amir of Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah, mediated and guaranteed by the Army culminated into the end of sit-in of that group in Faizabad interchange. The price paid to end sit-in was the resignation of Federal Law Minister Zahid Hamid and the further erosion of civilian authority.

If viewed in the perspective of state’s policy of appeasement vis-à-vis those who took law into their own hands it means that those who were supposed to establish the writ of state looked the other way when a group of people got a free hand and made the lives of local people miserable by blocking traffic. The deadline given by Islamabad high court to end sit-in by November 20 at Faizabad Interchange failed to materialise as the state’s policy of appeasing religious extremist group Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah further compounded the miseries of those living in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. When the state implemented court’s order in the morning of November 25 it was poorly planned and it failed to eject protestors from the Faizabad interchange.

It seems, government, representing state organs, is not at all mindful that its loss of credibility is being used by anti-state elements as they realise very well that taking law into their hands in the name of religion will deter the government to take any action

When state’s policy of appeasement ignored the verdict of Islamabad High Court for several days and also the observations of Supreme Court that the ‘protestors are undermining the state and its institutions’ and that ‘we have forgotten article 5 of the Constitution which demands loyalty to the state’ it means the government representing the state lacked authority and decision-making capability to deal with the ugliest situation in Rawalpindi and Islamabad for several weeks. Islamabad high court on November 24 declared Faizabad sit-in tantamount to terrorist act’ and asked the federal Interior Minister to explain why the state failed to act timely when it was categorically asked by the court to end the sit-in by November 20.

Except judiciary, whether it was Islamabad high court or the Supreme Court, no other organ of state had taken a stand against the madness which was going on in Pakistan in the name of religion. The silence of other state organs means either they were complacent or incompetent in dealing with a threat which was challenging the very survival of Pakistan.

It is not for the first time that state has pursued a policy of appeasement vis-à-vis religious extremist groups. Pakistan has a history of tolerating and appeasing those religious groups who take law into their own hands; blackmail the government and try to create an environment of fear and terror by sit-in, road blockade and forcing people to conform to their own way of life. Policy of appeasement has become a part of culture of this country as no government has ever taken a stand against those who use religion for political purposes.

The country is paying a heavy price of state’s policy of appeasement in two ways. First, state’s credibility in establishing its writ against those elements who take law into their own hands is at stake. No one will take state seriously because it failed to fulfill its responsibilities of protecting the lives and property of citizens and is a hostage of those elements who openly preach hate and anger in society. Supreme Court, the other day rightly asked that who was behind sit-in and who was benefiting by paralysing the capital and the city of Rawalpindi? That why adequate measures were not taken to discontinue the supply of essential items to the group involved in sit-in? That if such things are allowed to continue in that case people will be killed on roads because of government’s failure to rein in those elements who in the name of religion take law into their own hands.

It seems, government, representing state organs, is not at all mindful that its loss of credibility is being used by anti-state elements as they realise very well that taking law into their hands in the name of religion will deter the government to take any action. Second, policy of appeasement tends to shatter the image of country at the international level. If a part of clergy, which claims it as the custodian of Islam continues to dictate things, the very image of Pakistan will be eroded resulting into the imposition of travel and trade restrictions and the deepening of sentiments against Pakistani diaspora. When the images of religious fanaticism in Pakistan are depicted in international media, can one expect the world to be positive about this country? Perhaps, the biggest price which is paid to appease so-called custodians of Islam is the loss of Pakistan’s image abroad as every Pakistani national or an immigrant is viewed with suspicion particularly in the western world about the perceived sympathy or involvement in extremism, violence and terrorism.

Post-Faizabad sit in situation is not difficult to gauge. Extremist religious groups, who consider themselves above the law and make full use of state policy of appeasement, will further deepen their hold in society and will again challenge the writ of the state under some other pretext. It also means that the state is not even handed in dealing with those who take law into their own hands and those who launch peaceful protest for the acceptance of their genuine demands. The other day, police use excessive force near press club, Karachi to disperse a peaceful demonstration of school teachers who were demanding the release of their salaries. It means, state surrenders before those who have a nuisance value and take cover under religion and those who launch peaceful protest for their genuine demands. State’s dual policy on dealing with protests is counter-productive and will further deepen the level of violence in society.

If according to the Army Chief, force cannot be used against fellow Pakistanis who had taken law into their own hands by their illegal sit-in Rawalpindi and had hurled abuses against the judiciary and the ministers, why force is used against other fellow Pakistanis who happen to challenge state authority in other provinces of Pakistan? Unfortunately, when a state organ is uneven in using force, the result will be more and more polarization and sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces of the country. Therefore, the policy of appeasement on the part of some state actors vis-à-vis religious extremist and fanatic groups will be counterproductive and will further plunge the country in chaos and disorder and damage control measures on the part of the state will not help.

The writer is Meritorious Professor of International Relations, University of Karachi. E. Mail: amoonis@hotmail.com